About your Search

20130416
20130424
STATION
CSPAN 2
MSNBCW 2
CNNW 1
CSPAN2 1
LANGUAGE
English 12
Search Results 0 to 11 of about 12
lindsey graham says, he will not be tried as an enemy combatant. fireworks on the hill yesterday over immigration reform and long, long delays at airports because of the sequester. you got it. we'll tell you that and more right here on current tv. john fugelsang: if you believe in states rights but still support the drug war you must be cenk uygur: i think the number one thing viewers like about the young turks is that we're honest. i think the audience gets that i actually mean it. michael shure: this show is about being up to date so a lot of my work happens by doing the things that i am given to doing anyway. joy behar: you can say anything here. jerry springer: i spent a couple of hours with a hooker joy behar: your mistake was writing a check jerry springer: she never cashed it (vo) the day's events. four very unique points of view. tonight starting at 6 eastern. this show is about analyzing criticizing, and holding policy to the fire. are you encouraged by what you heard the president say the other night? is this personal or is it political? a lot of my work happens by doing
lindsey graham and others say the designation would have allowed authorities to mine intelligence for 30 days and question the suspect about possible links to terrorist groups actively trying to harm the united states. >> the ability to have access to this suspect without a lawyer present, to gather intelligence about a future attack is absolutely essential to our national security. >> critics say the president can't do that because tsarnaev doesn't fit the legal definition of enemy combatant. there is no proof yet that he is an active member of al qaeda or the taliban. >> possibly you might be able to benefit from the time. you may not. he may clam up. it's just as likely if not more likely that you would harm or potentially harm the federal case. >> the white house decision sets a pattern, since march 2009 the obama administration changed the way the war is prosecuted. ordering the pentagon who stop using the term global war on terror. instead calling it an overseas contingency operation. the president's current cia director raised eyebrows when he declared jihad is not necessary lay b
heard in that report from mike emanuel, lindsey graham, republican from south carolina said let's go quickly. essentially we have terrorists in our midst. we might. let's find out who all of these 11 million people who have come here illegally are but does anyone think that terrorists will step to the front of the line to register? >> you know, look. this is the broader question of will, will this immigration reform bill make us safer? i think gram gram overstated the argument, you're right. -- lindsey graham. you're a terrorist attempting to be member of a sleeper cell it is unclear you will necessarily surface as this proposed new law requires you to do and make yourself known to authorities. on the other hand here is the ironic thing. in a way the bill could make us safer from this perspective. the two brothers came here when their family came here. their family came here look like they had other families already here. the parents of two the brothers had a brother, their uncle already here in the united states and they therefore appear like they might have come here, they got extr
by using the normal criminal procedures. >> because lindsey graham and others say, yes, he should be tried as a u.s. citizen, should be tried in a u.s. civilian court, but that can await this process of doing some serious interrogation of him and designating him as an enemy combatant in the meantime. all of this is moot right now, because as you know, yesterday, he was formally given his miranda rights and a judge magistrate at his bed side with a court-appointed attorney, a public defender. this is moot as the obama administration has made its decision. is lindsey graham on sound legal ground, saying he should be tried in a civilian court, but held and questioned as an enemy combatant? >> i think the only fair answer to that question is we don't know. because it's never been done before in american history to have some sort of hybrid combatant and criminal proceeding. we do know from jake tapper's reporting, there was an interrogation of tsavraev. and he did disclose his position that there was no broader conspiracy here. just him and his pressure. it seems like the justice department and
are following today along with our top story out of boston. just yesterday senator lindsey graham warned islam is extremists are still a serious threat to our nation. >> our nation is at war, the enemy is radical islam, defined as the taliban, al-qaida, and affiliated groups. the question i have regarding this case, is there any association between these two individuals and the groups i just named to allow enemy combatant status to be conferred upon the suspect in boston. jenna: we now know according to the white house that is not going to happen. senator lindsey graham republican of south carolina is a member of the judiciary committee and stepped out of a hearing to join us. nice to have you back on the program. >> thank you very much. jenna: let's talk a little bit about what you had to say about radical islam. you say yo we need to up our game. what specifically do you mean by upping our game against radical islam. >> the first thing we need to do is reject the narrative of this administration that osama bin laden is dead, the wars are receding and we are all safe. they've been trying to s
a top republican like lindsey graham. >> the only thing you need to know about lindsey gram right now is that he's running for re-election. even though he knows better, even though he knows that dzhokhar, for example, is not going to be tried as an enemy combatant, even though he knows his allegations against the president are ridiculous, it's a way of him scoring political points. i'll say, you know, i don't think there's anything wrong as you were pointing out asking questions about, okay, did the fbi follow the right course here? >> the investigation. >> absolutely. but when you go for this nakedly political point instead, you actually undermine those sorts of honest investigations. because it turns it into political football rather than a real inquiry into what happened and if there was anything we could do or anything we could learn. >> i think, joan, there is a legitimate questions one could raise, whether i agree with them or you agree with them or not. >> right. >> but to rev up benghazi, too? it is clear they're trying to get all kind of old political points, mixing in with n
on watching that first-hand. lindsey graham says we need to up our game. we're still at war. now there's the big debate on spending right now. is this the time that to cut homeland security spending or to go after that budget or what is your view on that? because you know for two years now you've been talking about debt and deficit spending. and in this sense it all ties back together. >> well, what's driving our spending and driving our debt is the fact that there are 10,000 baby boomers like me retiring every day. 70,000 this week. 3.5 million this year. social security, medicare, there is no money there in those fund. it has all been spent. people are living longer, accessing medicaid. so the real drivers of the debt primarily are our big entitlement programs that won't survive in their current form unless we make some changes. so it has got, it really has nothing to do with what we call the discretionary spending pot. bill: understood. homeland security spending is not touched? >> we have the sequester because the president won't get serious about solving our big spending problem.
or not he should be charged or rather he should be classified as an enemy combatant. lindsey graham was on of the chat shows yesterday, said absolutely. this guy is not a common criminal. he was out to kill americans. what do you think? enemy combatant? >> well, there are some people who think that enemy commits an act of terrorism should be tried in our criminal carts and others think they should be designated as enemy combatants. it's complicated question and seems to me what this administration should be looking at is what is the best way to get this person -- to bring him to justice, and also the best route to insure that we get the best information we can because that information could be helpful in prehave noting additional attacks in the future and that could provide answers which could bring some measure of closure to the victims as the families. i suspect what's going on now is you're having a talk in the administration looking at all the information and deciding what's the best way to treat both of those objectives. >> steve: at this point it sounds like what the governmen
is one way to achieve something but, what we're trying to achieve, what lindsey graham, and kelly ayotte are trying to achieve, that is the most important thing. our priority here should be, i think, not to punish these perpetrators. not to prosecute them. not to rehabilitate them. our main purpose right now should be, we have somebody in custody who may know of other terrorist plots of other terrorist cells, who has information that may save lives and prevent future bombings. the question is, can we get that information from him, or are we going to do i think what now has been done, tell him he has the right to remain silent and we're going to remain ignorant of the information he has even if that means other people will be killed in terrorist attacks in the future. this is a decision we've made. i think it is a mistaken decision to say we're going to remain ignorant and we're not going, we're going to let him have the right to remain silent, aside from all the prosecution, aside from all other issues. we're remaining ignorant by choice. >> host: here are headlines. "washington post" sa
like rubio, on somebody like lindsey graham up for re-election. on somebody even like john mccain and jeff blake. so it's not impossible for this to occur, but it got a whole lot more difficult. >> joy, here's how the "national review" captured rubio's visit there. "it was striking to see how much he is personally admired by the colorful conservative pundits who broadcast on local a.m. stations, and by the biggest syndicated names like limbaugh. they still believe, without a doubt, that he's a top contender for the republican presidential nomination in 2016 and they love that he's already a national force. but when it comes to immigration, they're not buying it." >> yeah. >> why? >> well, because, you know, at the end of the day the o's at the end of rubio's first and last names are quite valuable to the republican party as an avatar for bringing in more hispanic voters. the ideas he's saying are not useful. it's been kind of pathetic to see marco rubio, supposedly this towering figure, latino ronald reagan of the republican party going hat in hand to radio hosts, begging them
to get us to the finish line, but also to have members like lindsey graham who overall had very little to gain from taking on a tough challenge like immigration reform, but willing to do so that he knows it is in the national interest and national security and the economy and what is right. that epitomizes all of my colleagues efforts. at the very beginning, i was not sure of the commitment of all of my colleagues. i must say they're shortly after the first few meetings, it becameayoo mean that there re touoments that there was a real desire to solve a prhat has for too long gone unsolved. i salute each and every one of them. it was one of the highest moms i have had in the senate, but even in the 20 years of being a house of representatives in congress. i'm looking forward to keep in that same tenacity and commitment. our system of immigration is broken. americans know that. they want to see it fixed. this is about preserving the national security. it is about enhancing the national economy. it is about preserving an american tradition that has had an exceptional reality of the greate
to achieve with lindsey graham and kelly, that is the most important thing. our priority should be not to punish these perpetrators, not to prosecute them, not to rehabilitate them. our main purpose should be that we have somebody in custody that may know of other terrorist plots and terrorist cells that has information that could save lives. can they get information from them? tell them that he has the right to remain silent and we are going to remain ignorant of the information that he has, even if that means that other people will be killed and a terrorist act in the future. it is a mistaken decision to say that we will remain ignorant. aside from all of the prosecution and issues. we are remaining ignorant right choice. >> officials say the boston bombing suspects are apparently motivated by religion. no terrorist group ties. -- brother's mastermind masterminded the attack. they worked independently. does that change your opinion? >> i have great respect for the media. i spent many years as a journalist. we get things wrong. how do we know? can you tell me who trained them?
Search Results 0 to 11 of about 12